Make up your mind: Either colby is really Good or usman shouldn't be p4p number 1

[Islam Imamate]

You have to choose. you can't say Colby isn't that good. while calling Usman P4P number 1. I find that a lot of posters have the idea that colby isn't all that after how easily he handled masvidal. It's understandable though, Masvidal himself is definitely not what he's been hyped up to be despite being an above average fighter himself.

Usman has been stellar as of late. A breath of fresh air to have a champion that defends often and is active. However he has only face 3 opponents in the last 3 years. Colby, Burns and Masvidal. before that, Maia, RDA and Tyron. This leaves his record eerily similar to Colby which many seem to be on the fence about his status as the definitive number 2 welterweights.

Personally, I've come to grips with the fact that Colby's competition as of late is less than stellar at WW, And by extension so is Usman's, since they are very similar.

I personally think it's bat shit insane that Usman is considered p4p number 1 in the sport (should be Volk or Izzy) Colby is Usman's best win x2, and I think generally most will agree with that.


So my mind has been made up.

Usman is the definitive number 1 welterweight, Colby is number 2. but Usman's resume isn't strong enough to be P4P number 1. and this is not "in light" of Colby's victory over Masvidal. this is just a general statement that Usman's record is really not THAT strong and neither is Colby's. I can't say that Usman's record is the strongest in the sport currently. I wouldn't call him p4p no.1.

I know P4P is some fantasy shit, but being no.1 generally means something. it means this is the best fighter in the sport overall currently. I really don't think it's Usman, nor should it have been Colby, Had Colby had been the one to beat Usman twice.

I don't think Colby is good so I concede Usman is not p4p #1. I would rank him under Volk and Petr Yan if not also Izzy and Holloway.

 

[BFoe]

So he hasn't fought edwards and burns.

Who have edwards and burns beaten that makes them such good wins?

New flash: Edwards only top 10 win is luque and this was ages before he was ranked. Almost 5 years ago. Burns has Wonderboy. why is it expect that colby should have fought all of them by now?

Colby also hasn’t fought Edwards, Belal, or Wonderboy. Actually, he hasn’t fought anyone currently in the top 10 other than Masvidal.
The real question should be “who has Colby beaten that makes him such a good win”? The guy got his first TS after a win over Lawler, who had lost 3 of his previous 4 going into the Colby fight.

 

[MB5161]

Colby is good. His wrestling is solid and so is his striking. Cardio will keep him fighting at the top level. However, Usman is next level.

 

[welcometohavoc]

You have to choose. you can't say Colby isn't that good. while calling Usman P4P number 1. I find that a lot of posters have the idea that colby isn't all that after how easily he handled masvidal. It's understandable though, Masvidal himself is definitely not what he's been hyped up to be despite being an above average fighter himself.

Usman has been stellar as of late. A breath of fresh air to have a champion that defends often and is active. However he has only face 3 opponents in the last 3 years. Colby, Burns and Masvidal. before that, Maia, RDA and Tyron. This leaves his record eerily similar to Colby which many seem to be on the fence about his status as the definitive number 2 welterweights.

Personally, I've come to grips with the fact that Colby's competition as of late is less than stellar at WW, And by extension so is Usman's, since they are very similar.

I personally think it's bat shit insane that Usman is considered p4p number 1 in the sport (should be Volk or Izzy) Colby is Usman's best win x2, and I think generally most will agree with that.


So my mind has been made up.

Usman is the definitive number 1 welterweight, Colby is number 2. but Usman's resume isn't strong enough to be P4P number 1. and this is not "in light" of Colby's victory over Masvidal. this is just a general statement that Usman's record is really not THAT strong and neither is Colby's. I can't say that Usman's record is the strongest in the sport currently. I wouldn't call him p4p no.1.

I know P4P is some fantasy shit, but being no.1 generally means something. it means this is the best fighter in the sport overall currently. I really don't think it's Usman, nor should it have been Colby, Had Colby had been the one to beat Usman twice.

I think Colby/Usman are this generation's GSP/Fitch.

 

[RockyLockridge]

Colby also hasn’t fought Edwards, Belal, or Wonderboy. Actually, he hasn’t fought anyone currently in the top 10 other than Masvidal.
The real question should be “who has Colby beaten that makes him such a good win”? The guy got his first TS after a win over Lawler, who had lost 3 of his previous 4 going into the Colby fight.

revisionist history, you know this is inaccurate, he won an interim title after he beat RDA, never lost a fight but got stripped. then beat lawler. that title shot was already earned.

and say what you want about lawler, but edwards and masvidal bost got title shots off of their wins against NATE DIAZ.

So don't even try it.

 

[Arrrrgh]

Lol at living in the world where things have to be black or white.

That is NEVER the case. It is ALWAYS the grey.

 

[JarlSkuld]

Okay, I made up my mind: Colby is a good fighter, but will never beat the P4P best fighter in the UFC now, Kamaru Usman. There are levels to this shit, as they say, and MAGAjaw is on a distinctly lower level.

Jarl

 

[Ezekiel 25:17]

I don't think talent wise Usman is anywhere close to being P4P. Like he said, he is just mentally above everyone else in the division. If you look at his fights, he dropped multiple rounds to Colby, been literally dropped by Burns, and did pretty much nothing in the first Masvidal bout

Adesanya, Yan, Volkanovski are 3 guys who i would definitely take over him right now. Then there's Whittaker, Holloway, and a few others in the mix as well

19 straight wins. Undefeated in the UFC. Id say hes in the p4p running.

 

[RockyLockridge]

wwwwwww

Lol at living in the world where things have to be black or white.

That is NEVER the case. It is ALWAYS the grey.

Okay, Their records are virtually identical across their last 5 opponents. you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either colbys record is overrated and so is usmans, or both of their records are good and they are both among the absolute best in the sport. one of the 2 statements MUST make more sense to you than the other. use whatever gymnastics you need to use to state your clear bias. I really couldn't careless. I don't care to change the minds of people with ZERO consistency to their opinion. It's clear they are just biased towards the fighter they prefer.

 

[Arrrrgh]

wwwwwww

Okay, Their records are virtually identical across their last 5 opponents. you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either colbys record is overrated and so is usmans, or both of their records are good and they are both among the absolute best in the sport. one of the 2 statements MUST make more sense to you than the other. use whatever gymnastics you need to use to state your clear bias. I really couldn't careless. I don't care to change the minds of people with ZERO consistency to their opinion. It's clear they are just biased towards the fighter they prefer.

You are still doing it.

There is always nuance.

It's a logical fallacy and an argumentative trap.

They are two different fighters. Even if they fought 10 common opponents with the exact same result it wouldn't mean they rise and fall together.

I think they are both that good. But I also think it's a shit argument to say it has to be this or that.

 

[RockyLockridge]

You are still doing it.

There is always nuance.

It's a logical fallacy and an argumentative trap.

They are two different fighters. Even if they fought 10 common opponents with the exact same result it wouldn't mean they rise and fall together.

I think they are both that good. But I also think it's a shit argument to say it has to be this or that.

Oh I understand what you're saying I don't think it's rational. I think the only nuiance I'm not considering is bias. Which I don't care if people hold.

Maybe you should check your surroundings. There are lots of people on this site who have been making threads about how unimpressed they are with colby... It's completely rampant as of late. We all know that's usmans best win and how could it not be?

 

[Lucas Motta]

volkanovski & adesanya > usman

Adesanya arguably just lost to Whitaker, as well as actually losing to what is a very average fighter in Jan. Usman has been walking through the division despite his close fight with Colby. Usman is a wrestler and his more finishes in recent times than the striker Adesanya.

 

[Arrrrgh]

Oh I understand what you're saying I don't think it's rational. I think the only nuiance I'm not considering is bias. Which I don't care if people hold.

Maybe you should check your surroundings. There are lots of people on this site who have been making threads about how unimpressed they are with colby... It's completely rampant as of late. We all know that's usmans best win and how could it not be?

You don't think what I am saying is rational?
I think their is miscommunication here or something.

My entire point is it is irrational to frame an argument as "it must either be this or that." By telling your audience what the only "rational" choices are, you are actually manipulating the situation rhetorically. It is an effective rhetorical device, but a logical fallacy all the same.

There is grey area here as there is everywhere.

There is validity to the argument that we don't know how good Colby is based on the competition he's faced, and that you think Usman is the best in the division, and that you think Colby matches up badly with guys like Khamzat, though believing Usman wins that fight. It's also rational to question how Colby would do against Burns, Luque, and Leon. There's much more nuance than what you are allowing for by framing the question the way you do.

That all said, in my opinion, Khamzat, Usman and Colby are the three most skilled fighters in the division overall and if everybody fought everybody 10 times each I think we'd probably see Usman #1, and Colby in the top 5. If I had to pick #2 right now, for rankings purposes, it's Colby, but that has more to do with the fact that the other fighters in the division ALSO haven't faced a ton of high level competition. They've all have arguments against the level of competition, and relatively recent losses, except Leon. But Usman vs Leon and Burns and Strickland are all wins Colby doesn't have, not to mention the two wins over Covington himself.

They don't rise and fall together.

Even though right now I have them 1 and 2.

 

[RockyLockridge]

You don't think what I am saying is rational?
I think their is miscommunication here or something.

My entire point is it is irrational to frame an argument as "it must either be this or that." .

what you are saying is rational. it just doesn't apply to this situation.

I also think you are missing my point almost entirely, How can colby NOT be the second best ranked WW LEGITIMATELY if his only recent losses are to the NUMBER 1 P4P fighter in the entire sport?

It's a simple question, With so much doubt about how good colby is how can there be SO much certainty that Usman is the absolute best fighter in the entire sport? usman fought tooth and nail with colby in both fights.